Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> Fri, 28 February 2020 01:30 UTC

Return-Path: <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54F3A3A0B8A for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 17:30:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.087
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.087 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fgI3L6ee8tHM for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 17:30:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lj1-x231.google.com (mail-lj1-x231.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 26FD53A0B83 for <spring@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 17:30:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lj1-x231.google.com with SMTP id e18so1412585ljn.12 for <spring@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 17:30:40 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=nO1u0acldJhuOFtvIWIep1Y971xmGYRxutbD2B1r+m4=; b=orV8IjMo4s/QPQMQqfPyg4t8i9pifDeQAV3ucqh+lPg+8LvWgyHAQ6NSlrcFHAg9zM +XpWBA4GsNPw9cX2DzHOB5omN9DbINQGvfpXoDPI4y5IxiS9v9lIBdqfKa86M6OodsY6 or6CduxqI0hdkpvUi6n2+Yqm72R7F4sjCkUfNaHT3Z+IbSf3tS7rFd7Isv9qNcp3/Fd2 LaPgdu3A76SZVGsz+uGarm5giSNBta2okefMGWybIMGfuhflqA01K59kR9TNHYS80+Me b626YFKiFwGe/SIXEvSt1Ix5JzFA5gHmnfTH4jUJkzEt+91+NySTc07eQhFAX3ljL7Ad bK6Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=nO1u0acldJhuOFtvIWIep1Y971xmGYRxutbD2B1r+m4=; b=gVZkede/+X4d4CHrkEQZ8Xvjsybc7vzlNjJOTrhOJ2UwrVAaGBNRL2dFKqc3W1+axN vgj6CvH3lhKACMkJwaTaIi+YHKZWZsDpdGpe6tYS5u/PHT7DJfXpD8oL4WnyGOdRzjnp fzNTa4haM+3b7V/Ujo7nwiSZhfJbbqAoZZ/Vk2+j21HRnYdX+S8uHU4/FMh1NSn7Jt4x dJa1bsK4pqw+d1pXOpx1zeEQP7CdQi1mCB75mh7lIhffGRZuIjDKaypMK3dOAJdA+8k8 zUnnfQgcWcN5r0dJAIXt+aU6febqWfo0B94SU84l2/pQJycgc1z2NeBqt+yPFGNZ/7nL dbuw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ0RUVSGDzhpbQ2TyLHFUes4NsdyXko0FYvTdvDMaplgYxNhZYZp nVO/CmGCoHiXcDzwFOhB3CQyhhvWi1utiGwuNEM=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vv2LuhwYqVWrTC+uu/qmcUdlhULs3ieseKIuOUngs+3LHb417LMy6V5wA5R+4p/c1X+NTyEe+gN1PH21B6GWEc=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:b0e3:: with SMTP id h3mr1143439ljl.56.1582853438173; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 17:30:38 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <17421_1575566127_5DE93B2F_17421_93_1_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A48D1A3DA@OPEXCAUBM43.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <CA+RyBmWQOgVmekANMLXVQeeBy9MK72Y653u0vpiW_GboqyDNUQ@mail.gmail.com> <238769EE-8272-420D-A2A4-BFECCE6E09AC@cisco.com> <CA+RyBmVkPK6Zv05vmmfHahXPJRRJ2SbWFuKTDTjBvvNFJWxqpw@mail.gmail.com> <70A6F938-29B0-473E-8559-7E20C7E992BD@cisco.com> <CA+RyBmVbYObSvcf9frfr8LBhKU5cmJ99o8mNJr_=CvH_z7j6Gw@mail.gmail.com> <5BF8B291-479F-400C-A551-8EF76F8F8090@cisco.com> <CA+RyBmU_PgWpFo+KmS4=jAmAGKwSqavBYys_WbaKrEkbvsu9mg@mail.gmail.com> <96CDB8DF-1741-4165-81CD-DEFE39416911@cisco.com> <CA+RyBmUYLaEih8w5rgWnk=1RYwUZmPG9D=q6PYHkTHz+KW-W5g@mail.gmail.com> <16588C97-EE7C-4F41-8232-DA66758C566D@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <16588C97-EE7C-4F41-8232-DA66758C566D@cisco.com>
From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2020 17:30:27 -0800
Message-ID: <CA+RyBmUk2tKdKukOseh_edrKva4EvRscCDeg2hVg+m5TgeM2Jw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril)" <pcamaril@cisco.com>
Cc: "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e9f4b6059f98c8c4"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/0XHXOTgxqTB9Zn62_KMSvlbw9rA>
Subject: Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Source Packet Routing in NetworkinG \(SPRING\)" <spring.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spring>, <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/spring/>
List-Post: <mailto:spring@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring>, <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2020 01:30:45 -0000

Hi Pablo,
thank you and al lthe authors for kind consideration of my comments, much
appreciated.
I've found all my comments being address in the latest version of the draft.
I'll now discuss with Zafar OAM-specific aspects of using some of behaviors
defined in the SRv6 network programming. Would be the most helpful if you
share your views. I hope you will agree if I keep you in the loop.

Regards,
Greg

On Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 12:12 PM Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril) <
pcamaril@cisco.com> wrote:

> Hi Greg,
>
>
>
> As per your feedback we’ve removed the reference to the OAM draft from the
> document.
>
> We’ve also removed the counters 2 and 3, keeping in this document the only
> counter specific to this document.
>
>
>
> These changes have already been incorporated into revision 10. Many thanks
> for the review.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Pablo.
>
>
>
> *From: *Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
> *Date: *Tuesday, 11 February 2020 at 17:38
> *To: *"Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril)" <pcamaril@cisco.com>
> *Cc: *"spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>
> *Subject: *Re: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
>
>
>
> Hi Pablo,
>
> thank you for considering my comments and making the update. I think that
> it is up to others interested, in particular in OAM of SRv6, to share their
> opinions regarding the relationship between this draft and SRv6 OAM
> document <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam-03>
> that is in 6man WG. Maybe Chairs of SPRING WG will reach out to 6man WG to
> consider the relationship between the documents.
>
> Regarding the counters being defined in the document. I think that the
> primary use of counters is by OAM. Thus, I think it would be appropriate to
> define and demonstrate the use of these counters in SRv6 OAM specification.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 7, 2020 at 2:03 AM Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril) <
> pcamaril@cisco.com> wrote:
>
> Greg,
>
>
>
> We have published an updated revision of the draft that incorporates the
> change. See more inline PC2.
>
>
>
> Many thanks,
>
> Pablo.
>
>
>
> *From: *Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
> *Date: *Monday, 27 January 2020 at 06:36
> *To: *"Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril)" <pcamaril@cisco.com>
> *Cc: *"spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>
> *Subject: *Re: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
>
>
>
> Hi Pablo,
>
> thank you for your thoughtful consideration of my comments. Please find my
> new notes in-line below tagged GIM>>.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 11:08 PM Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril) <
> pcamaril@cisco.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Greg,
>
>
>
> Inline.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Pablo.
>
>
>
> *From: *Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
> *Date: *Sunday, 19 January 2020 at 20:28
> *To: *"Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril)" <pcamaril@cisco.com>
> *Cc: *"spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>
> *Subject: *Re: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
>
>
>
> Hi Pablo,
>
> thank you for sharing your opinion. I understand that you believe that
> draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam will not change and will be published with
> defining the O-flag as
>
>       O-flag: OAM flag.  When set, it indicates that this packet is an
>       operations and management (OAM) packet.
>
> I, on the other hand, am much less certain that that draft and SRv6 OAM,
> in general, require the special flag in SRH. I believe that progressing
> the draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming with the current text and
> the informative reference increases the likelihood that an Errata must be
> filed one the SRv6 OAM draft is published.
>
>
>
> PC:
>
> I believe that we can trim the text in section 6.3 to avoid mentioning the
> O-bit without reducing the overall quality of the document.
>
> <old>
>
>    [I-D.ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam] defines OAM behaviors for SRv6.  This
>
>    includes the definition of the SRH Flag 'O-bit', as well as
>
>    additional SR Endpoint behaviors for OAM purposes.
>
> </old>
>
> <new>
>
>    [I-D.ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam] defines OAM behaviors for SRv6.  This
>
>    includes the definition of additional SR Endpoint behaviors for OAM
> purposes.
>
> </new>
>
> Do you agree with this change?
>
> GIM>> I agree that the new text is more clear and less dependent on the
> discussion of I-D.ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam. Though the "OAM behaviors for
> SRv6" that are introduced in the draft, i.e., "punt the packet" and "punt
> the packet with a timestamp", are being discussed and may change as the
> result of the discussion by 6man WG. Hence I think that it be better to not
> to reference   I-D.ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam altogether.
>
>
>
> PC2: I have updated the draft to remove the reference to O-bit as you
> agreed.
>
> Regarding removing the full reference to the OAM draft: I believe that the
> new text is generic enough as to be good regardless of the changes during
> the WG LC of the OAM draft. I believe that the reference is useful for
> someone implementing it.
>
>
>
> And as we're discussing a sub-section in the Operation section, I've got
> few questions on counters, hope you don't mind:
>
> ·         As this is part of the operational considerations, should there
> be any recommendation on the length of the counters?
>
> PC: Counter length is implementation dependent. The capabilities of
> different platforms have significant hairpin as to make any recommendation
> irrelevant.
>
> ·         Also, the usual drawback of detailed statistics to characterize
> a flow is scaling. Any consideration and recommendation on that?
>
> PC: There is no per-flow statistics. It is a counter per SRv6 SID. An SRv6
> SID is shared among different flows. No per-flow scaling is required.
>
> ·         And last. I didn't find any of these counters being discussed
> in draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam. Perhaps you can help me with a
> reference to the SRv6 document that uses them.
>
> PC: The counters are required by the controller. Its usage is out of the
> scope of this document.
>
> GIM>> I think that if SRv6 OAM was part of the network programming draft,
> then defining these counters, that are, in my understanding, an integral
> part of SRv6 OAM, logical, in the right place. But since SRv6 OAM is
> discussed in the draft of its own, I suggest considering moving Section 6.1
> Counters to I-D.ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam.
>
>
>
> PC2: The counters are part of the architecture and in my opinion do not
> belong to the OAM draft. The usage of the counters are beyond the OAM draft.
>
> Regards,
>
> Greg
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 10:23 AM Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril) <
> pcamaril@cisco.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Greg,
>
>
>
> Inline.
>
>
>
> Thank you,
>
> Pablo.
>
>
>
> *From: *Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
> *Date: *Sunday, 12 January 2020 at 04:01
> *To: *“Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril)” <pcamaril@cisco.com>
> *Cc: *“spring@ietf.org” <spring@ietf.org>
> *Subject: *Re: WGLC – draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
>
>
>
> Hi Pablo,
>
> thank you for your expedient response. Please find my new notes under
> GIM>> tag below in-line.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 1:09 PM Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril) <
> pcamaril@cisco.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Greg,
>
>
>
> Inline.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Pablo.
>
>
>
> *From: *Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
> *Date: *Tuesday, 7 January 2020 at 21:01
> *To: *Bruno Decraene <bruno.decraene@orange.com>
> *Cc: *SPRING WG List <spring@ietf.org>rg>, “6man@ietf.org” <6man@ietf.org>rg>,
> draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming <
> draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming@ietf.org>
> *Subject: *Re: WGLC – draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
> *Resent from: *<alias-bounces@ietf.org>
> *Resent to: *<cf@cisco.com>om>, <pcamaril@cisco.com>om>, <john@leddy.net>et>, <
> daniel.voyer@bell.ca>gt;, <satoru.matsushima@g.softbank.co.jp>jp>, <
> lizhenbin@huawei.com>
> *Resent date: *Tuesday, 7 January 2020 at 21:01
>
>
>
> Dear Authors, WG Chairs, et al.,
>
> I hope I’m not too late with my comments and questions on the document.
> Please kindly consider them as WG LC comments:
>
> ·         I have a question regarding the following pseudo-code:
>
>   S08.   Max_LE = (Hdr Ext Len / 2) – 1
>
>   S09.   If ((Last Entry > max_LE) or (Segments Left > (Last Entry+1)) {
>
>   S10.      Send an ICMP Parameter Problem to the Source Address,
>
>                Code 0 (Erroneous header field encountered),
>
>                Pointer set to the Segments Left field.
>
>                Interrupt packet processing and discard the packet.
>
>   S11.   }
>
>
>
> According to RFC 8200, Hdr Ext Len is the length of the extension header
> in 8-octet units, not including the first 8 octets. Thus, as I understand,
> max_LE is the length in 8-octet units of half of the extension header less
> one. On the other hand, Last Entry and Segments Left are indices. Hence my
> question, What is being compared in line S09 ( Last Entry > max_LE)? Length
> and index? If the goal is to use Hdr Ext Len to calculate the number of
> entries in the header, then what assumption is used in S08? Is it that the
> entry’s length is always and only 128 bits, i.e. 16 octets? I believe that
> using such an assumption is too narrowing and limiting to SRH.
>
>
>
> PC: This has already been discussed with Adrian. Please check this thread:
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/IOA_4nlNPacD2v7Jue2dkGeOABk
>
> GIM>> Thank you for the reference. In some aspects, part of my statement
> is repeating your answer to Adrain. The only length on an element in SRH
> considered is 128 bits, the length of IPv6 address. I think that your
> explanation of how you have arrived at th following formula
>
>     S08.   Max_LE = (Hdr Ext Len / 2) – 1
>
>  will benefit the document.
>
> My question to you and SPRING WG goes beyond this scenario. Considering
> presented in Singapore Unified Identifier proposals (
> draft-mirsky-6man-unified-id-sr
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mirsky-6man-unified-id-sr/> and
> draft-wmsaxw-6man-usid-id-use
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gmsm-bess-evpn-bfd/?include_text=1>),
> I believe other scenarios of using SRH, with elements of length other than
> 128 bits should be accommodated, e.g., 32 bits-long elements.
>
> i.
>
>
>
> PC: It is up to the draft-mirsky authors to standardize in their draft the
> changes to the SRH processing. As per today the draft-mirsky proposal is
> still an individual document.
>
>
>
> ·         Another question is to Section 6.3. What value do you see in
> this section? I've noticed that draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam is in the
> Informational References section. I agree with that for the first sentence
> in the section. But I believe that the second sentence that refers to the
> new O-bit and OAM behaviors defined in  draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam
> requires it to be moved into the Normative References section. Unless
> you'll decide to remove the section altogether.
>
> PC: The O-bit and OAM behaviors described in
> draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam are not required to understand or implement
> the technology described in draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming.
> However, they are relevant as to provide additional information to the
> reader. Why would it be a normative reference?
>
> GIM>> Ali and I are discussing several aspects of
> draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam. For example, the O-bit is applicable to
> any OAM operation or to some part of them. Note that OAM apparatus usually
> considered to include Fault Management and Performance Monitoring
> protocols. Both may operate as proactive or on-demand. Is the O-bit
> applicable to all OAM methods? Then, Fault Management OAM supports
> Continuity Check, Connectivity Verification and, for some networks,
> Automatic Protection Coordination. How O-bit is used in these methods? Now,
> to the Performance Monitoring OAM. I think that the O-bit can be only used
> in dual-ended one-way PM OAM. How O-bit may be used in single-ended two-way
> PM OAM? Can the O-bit support the Loss Measurement? As you may see, there
> are many questions to discuss and clarify in the document. I can imagine
> that the result of our work on draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam may be
> somewhat different from its current form. How to ensure synchronization
> between SRv6 programming and OAM specifications?
>
>
>
> PC: The current reference in draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
> does not explain particular mechanisms of draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam.
> It only says that draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam defines OAM mechanisms
> for SRv6 as well as the O-bit. This is flexible enough as to be correct
> regardless of the changes that you make during the WGLC to
> draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 9:15 AM <bruno.decraene@orange.com> wrote:
>
> Hello SPRING,
>
>
>
> This email starts a two weeks Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming [1].
>
>
>
> Please read this document if you haven't read the most recent version, and send your comments to the SPRING WG list, no later than December 20.
>
>
>
> You may copy the 6MAN WG for IPv6 related comment, but consider not duplicating emails on the 6MAN mailing list for the comments which are only spring specifics.
>
>
>
> If you are raising a point which you expect will be specifically debated on the mailing list, consider using a specific email/thread for this point.
>
> This may help avoiding that the thread become specific to this point and that other points get forgotten (or that the thread get converted into parallel independent discussions)
>
>
>
> Thank you,
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
> [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-05
>
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>
>
>
> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
>
> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
>
> a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
>
> Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
>
>
>
> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
>
> they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
>
> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
>
> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
>
> Thank you.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>